Loading...
1997-09-24 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE ROBERT KARPELES PAUL HAYES BRIAN CUSTER ROBERT MC NALLY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1997 TYPE II WR-1A CEA GERALDINE & ROBERT MIDDLETON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 119 SEELYE ROAD, EAST SIDE OF SEELYE ROAD, OFF OF CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME TO REPLACE AN EXISTING HOME. THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT MEET THE SIDE SETBACKS AND SHORELINE SETBACKS LISETD IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND THE SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-60,B,1,C. TAX MAP NO. 16-1-30.3 LOT SIZE: 0.97 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60,B,1,C JOE CATALANO, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-Do you want me to read the tabling motion in? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-“The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: June 25, 1997 Variance File Number: 31-1997 Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 31- 1997 Geraldine & Robert Middleton, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Until the neighbors can confer and maybe come up with some kind of agreement, and that elevations of a proposed house can be shown to the Zoning Board of th Appeals. Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE Sincerely, Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you are representing the Middletons? MR. CATALANO-Yes, sir. My name is Joe Catalano. I’m an attorney from Albany, and obviously I wasn’t here at the last meeting, but subsequent to that, Mr. and Mrs. Middleton hired me to assist them in their application. MR. THOMAS-All right. I left the public meeting open, just for more information, and we have the plans that we asked for, and I guess all the Board members have gone over them. So is there anything else you’d like to add? MR. CATALANO-Yes. Did you get both sets of the plans, two pages? MR. THOMAS-Yes. A1 and A2. MR. CATALANO-Okay. As you can see from the plans, the height of the building is within the height limitations for the zoning district. So just to clarify, even though it’s an existing nonconforming structure, pursuant to Article 11 of the Queensbury Code, since the side yard and 1 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) waterfront setbacks cannot be met, that’s why we’re here, for a variance for those two setbacks, and I just thought, I have a comment letter from the architect which may explain some of his rationale for the plans. I have copies for each Board member. Can I submit those? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Bring those on up, and we’ll read them into the record. MR. CATALANO-The other thing that I have that may assist the Board is some photographs, which show some various views of the house, and since I only have one copy of these photographs, I’ll just submit them to you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CATALANO-This is the house, and the reason why there’s a number of photographs with pretty much the same view is to show that in front of the house, on the waterfront side, the expanse of trees that are shielding the house from the water, and goes well above the house about 20, 25 feet. The other photograph that I believe is useful to the Board is a view from the lake front. Since I know the Board is very concerned about views, view from the lake front, it could show that the existing house which the Middletons are proposing to rebuild on the existing footprint, the existing house is shielded by the trees that are between the waterfront and the house, as well as the boathouses that already exist there, and I have, in that set of photographs it must be, and it shows that the house, the envelope of the house, as you know, the unusual configuration on the survey, the envelope of the house is that the house fits, nestles into that envelope, and there’s trees surrounding it. So it really minimizes any disturbance, as far as views and disturbance of the waterfront area, and as you know from the view from the lake, along that view, it has houses pretty much consistently one lot after another that are visible from the lake. Middleton’s house, as it now is, and it will be, if the Board allows them to reconstruct, will continue to keep that open area, that green space area, to the west of their house. In addition, it will also enable views from those people that are on the other side of Seelye Road to still have a view of the lake, as opposed to putting the house more in the center portion of the lot. Unfortunately, I have spoken to the neighbors’ attorney, Mr. O’Connor, I believe the Kajdasz’ are the neighbors, and we could not come to a resolution about the concerns that the Kajdasz had raised, and so right now we are going forward with the original proposal, amended by only the architectural drawings. One other note is, as the architect noted in the drawing, we did the placement or the elevation for the portion, the half of the house that is on the northern side from the chimney toward the Kajdasz’ property. It’s actually going to be two feet lower than the existing elevation that it is right now, and the elevation on the other side would be raised a bit. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Catalano? MR. STONE-Well, I’m just curious. Was there one particular sticking point between, in the deliberations? MR. CATALANO-Well, I don’t know if I’m at liberty to disclose them, but no, it just wasn’t one, I don’t believe. It’s a difficult site, and there is a number of issues that we couldn’t resolve. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for Mr. Catalano? If not, I’ll open the public hearing, or it’s already open. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ROSE GUERRA MRS. GUERRA-Hi. I’m Rose Guerra. We have property two and three doors from the Middletons, to the south. Our reason for speaking again tonight is that we are in favor of their application for a variance. We feel this should be granted. They’ve been subject to many, many problems. We want them as neighbors, as I mentioned before. They’re the kind of people anybody in this room would want as a neighbor. They’re very concerned about the lake. They’re concerned about the ecology. They’re concerned about the mountains. They’re concerned about the animals. They go out of their way to help anyone, whether it be somebody that’s renting or somebody that lives there year round. They’re always there to help. I don’t know what more I can say, except I don’t know what the problem with this variance is. They’re willing to stay below the level, which is now 28 feet, which I understand. They’re willing to compromise a great deal, and they have had to compromise for almost 15 years. They’ve had to put up with a stockade fence that was six foot, right along side of their porch, and then when the Board finally said that fence had to come down, then a row of bushes were put in, and now they have a great big cabin cruiser. You can’t even see 2 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) their house. So I don’t know what the big problem here is about them building in their footprint. They pay taxes. They’re good neighbors. They’re people you would want on your block. That’s all I can say. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Anyone like to speak opposed? MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Michael and Susan Kajdasz who are neighbors of this project. They live immediately to the north of the Middleton property that we are talking about here. I would like to address perhaps just the new information, and I will try to address the information, I think, in the sense in the setting that we have here. We’re supposed to be looking at a piece of property, and not at persons, and not at a neighborhood dispute, if there is a neighborhood dispute. We’re supposed to be looking at it from a planning point of view. I used some terminology the last time, as to what I thought the burden of proof for the Middletons was, and I think counsel for the Board had some exception to the terminology I was using. I did take a look at Section 267B(3). In fact I made copies of it, and I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but there’s a lot of information within the material that’s part of McKinney’s, which I think is germane to this particular application. Particularly as to the scope of your review and the fact that, again, we’re supposed to be talking about the property. We’re not supposed to be talking about the persons, and you have a set of guidelines that you would follow. I see that Staff has re-done their comments, and in particular, they have the opinion from their independent point of view that the applicant fails to meet two of the tests that they’re required to meet for an Area Variance. I think the problem that they have here and the biggest problem that they have here is that there are very, there’s no doubt that it would be a detriment to the Kajdasz property if it’s allowed. We had Van Dusen and Steves blow up a part of the survey, if you will, and I think I’ve given part of that to Staff, and if you look at the Kajdasz property, we did some actual views, and I think the views that you’re talking about disturbing are views Four and Five. The Kajdasz property is set back significantly from the lake. The existing operation or present structure already interferes with the views that you have from the Kajdasz property. What is proposed here is significantly going to interfere further. If you take your time and go through, this is Photographs One through Five, as are shown on that particular sketch. Probably more telling are some other photos that were taken prior to this, which show that from the deck and the property of the Kajdasz property, you can see over the existing building to the lake. So you have a lake view that is only partially impeded by the existing structure, and I’d also make the point that I think you’re constrained to look at this property not as a property with the existing structure on the site. You’re, because of the choices that are being made by the Middletons, have to look at this as though it were a vacant parcel. There are no grandfathered rights when they choose to demolish the building. We’ve been through this a couple of times with different properties. They are not re-modeling the existing camp. So you’re looking at it like any other lake property, and if you were looking at this as a completely vacant property, would you, in your judgment, allow a camp or a home, a full year round home, to be built five feet from the property line? There’s a history to where that line was created. It’s some old history. That is not something you or I can do anything about, but it is something you can do about as to the placement of the new structure. If you take a look at the sketch that was presented by the applicant, I’ve got a portion of it, A2, and I don’t know if I necessarily agree with, well, maybe not necessarily agree, but I’m not sure if I understand which side the Kajdasz’ would be looking at. As I understand, the top right hand picture, I think that is a view from the Kajdasz residence. So I would take it that that is how you would look at the property to the south, if you were standing on the Kajdasz property and looking south. That would the north side of the Middleton property, and I’d ask the Middletons if I’m correct. This property here, it says view from Kajdasz property. This is looking south from the Kajdasz property. MR. CATALANO-Okay. You’ve got that, the view south would be over the left hand portion of the building. MRS. LAPHAM-The Kajdasz property’s to the north, right? MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. This is the piece that would run parallel to the 40 foot, 44 foot boundary of Kajdasz. This would run parallel to this boundary? MR. CATALANO-This is the view from here. 3 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. If you take a look at this map, your top view right here, this piece here, is, I’m told, the portion of the house that would be parallel to this line. So if you were in the Kajdasz yard, you’d be looking at that view. If you were on the Kajdasz deck, you’d be looking across that view, and if you take a look at how we’ve colored in the addition, you’re now going to a full fledged second story, and if you take a look at the total height of it, it’s almost like a three story, because of the exposed front of the property. It’s different, and this is the front of the property, I take it. The front of the property is still low, but as you get to the back, which you’ve got to look over, you’ve got to look over, as I understand it, 12 feet of new building, 14 feet of new building when you get into the in step of the new building, if this is to scale, one quarter inch equals an inch. This, I take it, would be the back of that building. So if we brought this around, and did a three sided photo on this one here, you’re talking about 10 feet of new building, or six feet of new building, depending upon which corner you’re looking at. If you take a look at these photos right here, as I understand is, all this addition is right up above here, where all that lake is visible. MR. CUSTER-Where were those pictures taken from? It looks like they were taken from a roof almost, at that angle. MR. O’CONNOR-From the deck. The Kajdasz property sits back, if you take a look at this. MR. CUSTER-I was there and I looked at it. The angle of elevation looks awfully severe in relation to the view. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Custer, from the closed in porch on the Kajdasz property. There’s no doubt that the addition will impinge upon the view from that deck from the enclosed porch, but also what you’re doing is also continuing the closeness and the proximity of this residence to their front yard, and that is the beauty of any lake property. That’s the reason that they have, if you will, the th hedges that are there. I think the Board is aware of our letter of August 19. Are they, Chris? MR. ROUND-I’m not sure what package they received. MR. O’CONNOR-I think you should also look, because I think the second question that you have, the size wasn’t as detrimental to the Kajdasz property as whether or not the same results can be th achieved by some alternative. We wrote, on August 19, we did not intend it to be a secret offer, but we were told that the last time that the right-of-way behind the property interfered with the possibility of moving the camp back, or toward the center of the lot. We offered, as the first part of that letter, to give up the right-of-way that would run behind the camp, that was there in the prior deed for vehicle access to the front of the Kajdasz property, if they would center the structure. We’ve had some discussions since then, and my indication of centering was at least maintaining the 20 foot side setback that was required. That offer has not been withdrawn. That offer is still available. I have, in fact, an executed deed from the Kajdasz to the Middletons, and it basically would give up a right-of-way for vehicle access, which would allow them to change the position of that building. It’s tendered in this setting, upon condition that there is compliance with the 20 foot setback on the north of the property, and if that is not something that is achieved, then I would ask for that to be returned, but I don’t want there to be any question of fact that there is a feasible alternative available to them. Just so you fully understand what we talked about also, we did offer a second offer, and we said we’d even give up the right-of-way that we have to the right- of-way or boat and dock usage that we have by easement, in exchange for the property that is part of that jutting out. It’s unrelated, necessarily, maybe necessarily to the variance, but just so you fully understand it. That was rejected, and when it was rejected, we would even entertain, perhaps, some negotiations for a sale or purchase so we could straighten out the boundary line, and give up the right-of-ways at the same time. We were clear in our letter, and I think I was clear in my discussions that we did not condition the giving up of the vehicle right-of-way upon anything other than maintaining the 20 foot setback that is possible on the property. We also, just for your own information to see exactly what you’re talking about, and perhaps see how substantial the relief is that’s requested, we had Van Dusen and Steves measure the distance from the lake, or the nearest point of the Kajdasz camp to the lake, and then nearest point of the Grillo property to the lake, which is to the south of the Middletons, and my understanding of our Section in the Ordinance under the new setbacks that are required for lake shore properties, you are to maintain, on this size lot, 50 feet setback or the average of the setbacks of the two adjoining properties. The two adjoining properties here actually are better than 50 feet. So your setback would be 58 feet. We have submitted a map to you, or to Staff, showing the 58 foot setback that’s supposed to be required, as well as showing how the 20 foot setbacks would effect the request. You’re talking better than 100% relief here. You’re not even talking coming close to any compliance, and again, you’re supposed to be looking at this not as a grandfathered building, but as a vacant lot, and 4 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) determining what balancing you’re going to do between the requirements of the Ordinance and what is proposed. We colored in, on this map here, if you will, the building envelope, just to show you the 20 foot. There’s only one small sliver in the middle of that camp that actually is in compliance with the 20 foot setback. None of it is in compliance with the 58 foot. I think you’d be hard pressed to accept this as a precedent, when you’re supposedly looking at a vacant lot on the lake and saying why we’re not even attempting in any manner to come near what is required. Now I have not seen the letter from the architect, so I can’t really comment on that. I’d like to see that, if I can, to comment on it. MR. HAYES-Mr. O’Connor, you’re saying that there’s good law that says that we should not be considering the fact that there’s an existing structure there now? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-There is? Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t think Staff has any question about that. MR. ROUND-No. That’s the purpose of, if you’re taking down, it’s considered new construction, for removing a structure, and that’s why they’re applying for a variance. If they were to remodel the structure internally, it wouldn’t require a variance. MR. STONE-And the old footprint argument doesn’t? MR. ROUND-Right, and there’s plenty of history on that. So I don’t think we have that as a matter of discussion. MR. O’CONNOR-Unfortunately, I was part of that history, the Mooring Post Marina. Once it’s torn down, you have no grandfathered rights. If it’s torn down by an act of nature, then you have some grandfathered rights, or destroyed by an act of nature, I guess is the terminology. MRS. LAPHAM-And there’s a finite time, there’s a limit to how long, isn’t there, if they’re torn down by an act of nature? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, 18 months. There’s an 18 month limit, but I don’t think there’s any question you’re supposed to be looking at this as a vacant lot. MR. HAYES-My second question is, the 20 foot offer that was made by the neighbor, there was no provisions about a front yard setback on that? They didn’t make that be contingent on that? MR. O’CONNOR-We did not make that a contention of our offer, or a condition of our offer. We thought that you would make your own determination on that. MR. STONE-Which 20 feet? You weren’t talking 20 all the way around. Were you talking the 20 on the jutting out spot here, when you talk about? MR. O’CONNOR-Basically, 20 feet from our side, show us the 20 foot setback. MR. STONE-From both of these lines? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-You weren’t talking 20 all the way around? Were you talking the 20 on the jutting out spot here, when you talked about? MR. O’CONNOR-Basically, 20 feet from our side, show us the 20 foot setback. MR. STONE-From the whole, from both of these lines? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-You weren’t talking about just moving the whole thing this way? MR. O’CONNOR-In order to do it, I think you’re going to end up with the building over in here. The 20 foot is already set up on there. 5 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. STONE-I understand that much. MR. O’CONNOR-On that map it’s not set up. MR. STONE-No, but when you said you were willing to concede 20 feet or something, you’re talking from both these lines. MR. O’CONNOR-Twenty feet is, yes. MR. STONE-That’s the law. That’s the zoning, I realize that, but you made some concession you said, about 20 feet. MR. O’CONNOR-The concession that we made was that we would give up our right-of-way. MR. STONE-Right, I understand that part. MR. O’CONNOR-Which they said interfered with them. MR. STONE-Right. MR. O’CONNOR-We also said that we would not argue with the Board as to the Board’s determination of what the appropriate front setback is. MR. STONE-Front setback from the lake, you mean? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. If you slide it over, I don’t know if that’s, I said I wasn’t going to argue about it. I’m not going to argue about it, okay. I leave that entirely up to the Board and the Board’s discretion. What we’re talking about is getting away from our property line. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re talking 20 feet from any part of the property line? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all I wanted. MR. O’CONNOR-We’re objecting to any variance on the side property line. MR. STONE-Side property lines really. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, side property lines. MR. STONE-Because you’ve got this jut here. MR. O’CONNOR-You could perhaps call one of those the back line and then it’s a 30 foot, and I haven’t tried to do that. I’m not trying to be cute. Sliding it over, too, is another point. As I understand it, this is a photograph taken from Seelye Road, down through the Middleton property. You have a letter some place in your packet that says the people that are upland, on the other side of Seelye Road, want to preserve their view as much as Kajdasz wants to preserve his view, or their view. This is a photo taken from Seelye Road. You can’t see anything down by the lake. They’ve got a mound system. MR. THOMAS-I can’t see that either. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I notice, also, that Staff has changed its, not changed, but in its opinion says that it believes that the requested relief is substantial. I’d make that part of the record. If you get past Section 3B, 1, 2, 3, 4 tests and you get down to C, again, you have a secondary test which talks about, is the relief that you’re going to grant the minimum that is necessary to accomplish a fair balancing. Based upon the application here, I don’t think the application is any place near minimum relief. Again, I would try to quantify it, but it’s entirely within all setbacks. They are not complying in any manner with any setback on shoreline or on the side line, and I’d ask, can I see that letter from the architect. MR. THOMAS-It’s going to be read into the record, but if you want to read it ahead of time. 6 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Why don’t I read this copy, and then I’ll come back and comment, and I won’t hold you up. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. O’CONNOR-For demonstration purposes, I’ll just pass these out. MR. THOMAS-That’s the right-of-way they’re going to give up. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. MR. THOMAS-Right here. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. So that gives them 20 feet more to move over, because they don’t have to consider that any longer. MR. THOMAS-They never really had to anyway. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. So if the driveway’s gone, it’s not next to the driveway. MR. THOMAS-Well, this is going to be their driveway anyway, because there’s their garage. Is there anything else you’re going to say, Mike? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I didn’t know if you were done or not. MR. O’CONNOR-I have looked at the letter. I would comment that I don’t know what new information this presents. I think, really, the whole gist of the issue before you, though, is in the second to the last paragraph, where the architect here talks about Mr. Middleton or the Middletons. He also wanted to maintain a certain green area to the south of the home for lawn recreation which is currently used extensively. That’s a personal desire. That’s a personal choice, and if you read through the minutes, and that’s in part why I copied all these minutes or comments. That is not the basis for an Area Variance. That is a personal desire. It has very little to do with the site. I suppose, and it’s not unique to the property, if anybody or everybody had their choice, they would perhaps, although I think from even a marketing point of view, they’re better off siting this thing in the middle of the lot, but everybody was squinched over to the side line, you keep an open yard on one side and favor themselves and say, to heck with what happens over on that neighborhood, maybe not put windows over there or whatever, but it’s not a planning concept. It’s not a basis for the granting of an Area Variance, if that’s the whole basis of their argument, and take a look at the notes that are there, that we’ve given you in the Town law on the Kinneys, and I think it’s clear that that is so. Thanks. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. O’Connor? If not, is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? OSCAR SCHRIEBER MR. SCHRIEBER-My name is Oscar Schrieber. I live next to Mr. Kajdasz, one house to the north of Mr. Kajdasz. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SCHRIEBER-I was here last time, it was during the summer, and I heard one of the Middleton’s supporters speak of what a nice, what nice people they were, and how they saved the duck, and I have no problem with that, but everyone’s attacking Mike Kajdasz for trees and fences and so on and so forth. So I just wanted to tell you a little thing, and this really doesn’t have a lot to do with the variance, but it’s in defense of Mike, and they said they want the Middletons as a neighbor, and let me tell you why I want Mike as a neighbor. My son was born 13 months ago, 8 weeks early, and when kids are born that early, they can have a problem with their eyes. He was sent to an eye doctor when he was six months old, and the eye doctor said he may have retinopothy. If it doesn’t clear up in four months, we’re going to put him in glasses. Can you imagine a nine month old kid in glasses? I can’t keep him in close, never mind glasses. He throws everything off. There’s a Dr. John Simon who they say is at least the best in the State, maybe the best in the Country, and all he does is work on infants eyes. That’s it. We called his office. There was a six 7 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) month wait to see him, because this other doctor wanted to put him in glasses. Mike works very closely with the Lions Eye Institute. So I went to Mike Sunday night, and I said, I really have a big favor to ask you. I know this is really out of line, but it’s for my son, and I’m going to ask you anyway, and he said, go ahead. I said, do you know John Simon and can you get me an appointment. Well, he had me an appointment for Tuesday morning. I took Bradley down there, and Dr. Simon examined his eyes and said, his eyes are fine. There’s nothing wrong with them at all. Now this other doctor would have put him in glasses, and I asked Dr. Simon, why did this doctor say he should wear glasses and you say no? And he said, because I only work on kids. This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So if it weren’t for Mike getting me in to see Dr. Simon, that kid would have been in glasses at nine months old, that he didn’t need, and now he’s 13 months old, and he’s great, and he’s fine, and his eyes are perfect, ten times better than mine, and I know this embarrasses Mike, but that’s who I want as a neighbor, someone who would call a favor in for that, possibly save my son’s vision. That, I mean, ducks are great, don’t get me wrong, but I think my son’s eyes are as important as saving a duck and he saved my son’s eyes is what he did. Number One. Number Two, this summer, I was at Mike’s house and we sat on the front porch, and I looked at him and I said, I can’t believe how close that house is. You’ve been there. You can almost touch it, it’s so close. So then I didn’t, I said, okay, I mean, I can’t imagine a bigger house that close, and then I went up to my house, and the second floor of my house, we have an enclosed porch. I looked, my house is 85 feet from the water because when we built, in October of ’93, the rule was 75 feet, and there was a rock mound that we had to go either in front of or behind because we couldn’t build on it, and we went behind it, obviously. So we’re 85 feet from the water, as opposed to 75. My view to the south would be impigned if this structure was taller. I grant you that I’m 85 feet from the lake, but it still would be impinged because we look down, if we look down toward the Castaway Marina, that blue house is right there, and that would impinge my view of the lake. We don’t have much of a northern view at all because of the existing structures. One is a boat house, which is grandfathered, and then there is a big boat port two doors to the north of me, so we have no view to the north of the lake, and of course, it’s inside the Bay, and then there’s a jutting out about 500 feet up, before the Bay opens up. So we really have no northern view. This would really impinge on our southern view, and then I started thinking, when we built, we bought lake front property, and we built a house and were 85 feet from the water. Well, if this house is 10 or 15 or 20 feet from the water, whatever it is, I’m so far back it’s probably not even considered lake front. I mean, it is considered lake front, but it’s barely lake front, if I’m so far back, and everyone else is going to be so close. Mike’s house is closer than mine, although not a lot, but if this house was 10 or 20 feet from the water, it’s going to be real close, and mine isn’t, the value isn’t going to be great. I’ll probably lose money because people will say, well, I’d rather have a house closer to the water, like theirs is, than what yours is, and I followed the rules when I built, and if you’re talking about new construction, when I got my permit in October of ’93, I would never have come to this Board and asked you to give me a permit to build 20 feet from the water. I couldn’t imagine doing that, and I’ll tell you, I’m the Zoning Board of Appeals attorney in Clifton Park. I wouldn’t have the guts to ask you to do that, being a lawyer or being no lawyer. I don’t think that’s right. I had to follow the rules, and if this is new construction, how come somebody else doesn’t have to follow the rules? I didn’t come and ask for a variance, and I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been granted, but I just think that’s a big variance, and that’s very, very close to the lake, and it’s going to devalue my property because I’m much further back from the lake, and it’s going to impinge on my view, and standing in Mike’s front porch, I just couldn’t believe how close it is, and if it’s allowed to be bigger and taller, it’s going to dwarf Mike’s view. It’s going to totally kill that view, right in front of his house. It’s right there. There’s nothing else. The only other way he can look is north, and I know my view is very bad to the north, and he’s one door to the south. So his has to be worse than mine is. MR. THOMAS-It’s not. I’ve got a picture of it right here. MR. SCHRIEBER-I don’t think that’s a great view at all. MR. THOMAS-Here’s Mr. Kajdasz’ view to the north. MR. SCHRIEBER-Yes. See, I don’t think that’s a great view. MR. THOMAS-It looks like a great view to me. MR. STONE-To the north? Yes. MR. THOMAS-That’s Picture Number One. 8 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. SCHRIEBER-Okay. See, mine isn’t at all. Maybe because I’m closer to the boathouse to the left, because I’m one house north, but looking from his front porch, straight out, the house is so close. I trust you people have been there. It’s so close, I just think a bigger house would really, really hurt the property values. Nobody else is that close to the lake, and certainly no new construction is that close to the lake. I don’t know. I’m speaking against it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? Would anyone else like to speak one way or another? DR. JOSEPH GUERRA DR. GUERRA-My name is Dr. Joseph Guerra. I have property two houses to the south of the Middletons. The only thing I wanted to bring out was that I remember, maybe 30 years ago, I think when the McCoys had the property, I looked at the property because I was interested in buying a place, and the only, the thing that impressed me the most was this beautiful fireplace that was in the center of the camp, and that would be the biggest selling point, to me, if I was going to buy the place, and it just seems to me it would be a crime to, you know, if you wanted to make a permanent home there, you definitely would want to maintain and keep this fireplace, and you would definitely want to build around it. So I know if I had the place, I would want to build around this, and keep this fireplace, and I just think, I know I can see, you’re talking about the boundary lines and everything, but I’m sure I would do my darndest to try and keep this structure right where it is, so I could maintain the fireplace or at least work out so I could keep it in the same area. Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak? MR. CATALANO-Mr. Chairman, do I have the chance to rebut? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CATALANO-I’d appreciate that, because this is very important to the Middletons. Their reason for going for the variance, or reconstruction is really they want to live on the lake full time, and the house, you cannot winterize the house. It’s built right on bedrock. There’s no way you could crawl under, a substantial part, and the construction, the house is over 80 years old. The walls are very thin. It just would cost more money to winterize it than it probably would be to rebuild, but to bear with me a moment. May I put just a sketch, so that we have something to look at? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CATALANO-Understood that if this was a vacant piece of property, I don’t even think the Middletons would be asking for this variance that they are, but the fact of the matter is this house has been in existence for 80 years, at the same location. All the other houses in the vicinity came after that, including Mr. Kajdasz’ house, who had the opportunity to locate the house anywhere, meeting the setbacks anywhere he chose, and chose the spot he did, or he and she did, I should say, and as the architect noted in his letter, the house is angled away from the Middletons, by 30 degrees the architect says, and to maximize the view to the north, which means two things to me, either they were accounting for the Middleton house to be there permanently, which they should, because the Middletons have a right to have it there permanently, or they’re maximizing the views to the north, and discounting the views to the south. Now, when you talk about the Kajdasz’ views over the house, right now we are proposing to have a slightly higher structure, by several feet, of the roof line on the south portion of the house, and lower by two feet on the north portion. However, I really want the Board to take a look at those pictures that I submitted from the back portion of the house, which shows that there are 50 foot trees between the house and the lake. So that there is no view, over the house, through the house, what have you, of the south portion of the view from where this view directly over the camp is now, because of the trees. The trees do not have to be taken down. Now there is no issue, I agree, this is not a personal matter. No matter how great the Middletons are, it shouldn’t sway your decision, and there’s no allegation here that the Kajdasz’ are anything but as good neighbors as the Middletons for the rest of the neighborhood, but the truth of the matter is, one of the things, that they have a porch on the right side of their house, as you face it from the water, and there is a line of hedges there. For whatever reason, or however it happened, this line of hedges has now grown to the point where it completely obscures the view from their porch, which is one of their principal spots, obviously, in the summer time. However, they’re willing, that’s one of the reasons they re-designed the house, so they would have some views along the front portion of the house, through the trees, and over, basically maximizing 9 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) the southern view. The boathouse and the neighbor’s boat to the north side of the boathouse completely obstructs any views that you would have of the lake anyway, and the house is going to be fit exactly where it is now, and there is no change, and most importantly, no change from the views from the lake. Now, Mr. O’Connor said we’d be willing to move it, if they’d be willing to move it 20 feet, you know, they would give up their easement and allow us to do so. In fact, we offered to move the house directly 15 feet from where it presently stands, so there would be a 20 foot setback on the right hand side, but, as Mr. O’Connor pointed out, it was 20 feet from all of the side yards. So that would mean it would have to be directly in the center of this lot, and I feel, if you take a look at the pictures, particularly from the lake, if you put a house right directly in the lot, sure it’s going to meet all the setbacks, but is that really going to be proper planning for the lake? Right now, you have open space green area you can view from the lake. It’s the only area it breaks up, you know, the houses all along the lake front here. Right now, you cannot even see the house most times, especially in the summer months with the foliage, you can hardly see the house from the lake. So right now, basically, they’re proposing the least disturbance possible. Now, of course, a couple of feet may or may not, I’m not sure because of the trees in front of the house, may effect the views. Lets say they do effect the views to the Kajdasz house. However, the Area Variance test, as you know, is a balancing test. It’s the benefit to the applicants as opposed to the detriment to the area and the community, and the neighborhood, and we’re focusing really on one neighbor here. We have other neighbors involved. Look at the house right here, that you can see on the south portion of the Middleton’s lot. It’s very close. That neighbor, if you put a house centering in their lot, that neighbor is going to have a problem with it. So there’s no question, any change is going to be problematic, but you have to identify and go through the criteria, and one is, is there really going to be an adverse change here? And the only change that is proposed, and that the Board has to decide, is in the raising of the roof line on the southern portion of the house is going to be such an adverse change that it will cause you to deny their variance, because everything else is the same. The building footprint is going to stay the same, and it’s really going to, there’s a question whether the Middleton’s, and it’s raised in the architect’s letter, there’s a question about what bedrock and what building difficulties are on the other side of the lot. At least where the house is now, we know that a house can be built there, because of the situation there, the bedrock and depth to bedrock. However, any other location might require substantial construction, which is going to tear up the site, and it may not be restored to where it is now, and I just, I mean, I’ve been to the site three or four times, and I really do not see any better spot for the house. Since the Middletons are trying to keep it small, which they are, they’re proposing approximately 2300 square foot house. Right now, they’re house is a little bit above 1600 feet. They’re not proposing a big, huge house. They’re trying to minimize the disturbance. They really are, do make use to this southern portion of their lot. Now that’s personal use, sure, but it’s still, it is a use of the lot that, if they did away with this envelope, they would have no privacy, and they cannot move very far back because you have garage and you have elevations going. So the house from the back side of the lot is only 20 feet above the elevation because of the rise. So any farther that you go back, the true elevation is going to rise as you go, but I think if the Board balances the five criteria, and, sure, the variances that are requested are substantial. I have no problem with that conclusion. However, it’s not a numbers game. It’s not whether they make three out of the five tests, and so forth. It’s a balancing test. It’s a weighing of the benefit that the applicants may get from the variance, as opposed to the detriment to the neighborhood, not just to one neighbor, and that’s what I really want to emphasize. The Middletons have worked with their architect very hard to try to minimize any disturbances possible. They have a very small footprint, and in order for it to be a full, a year round house, we really have to raise one side of the roof or the other. There’s no way around it, and, you know, if the variance is not granted, status quo is going to remain, and I don’t know if anybody’s actually going to benefit from that. Because the trees are still going to be in place, the hedges are still going to be in place, all views are going to be obscured anyway, the boathouse and the 30 plus foot boat next to the boathouse. So I just really want to emphasize to the Board to take your time, carefully consider the entire area, as well as the views from the lake, and lets not just concentrate on one neighbor’s view, because, sure, any new construction’s going to be detrimental to a neighbor. There’s no question, but it’s the overall scheme. We’re talking about years and years down the road. The Middleton’s house has been there for 80 years. We just want to continue that in the same spot. Thanks. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Catalano? MR. STONE-I have a question. Earlier you said, because of bedrock, they can’t winterize the present home, and yet you say they could build there, even though there is bedrock. MR. CATALANO-Well, actually, it’s the way that the house is constructed. The walls are less than four inches thick in most areas around the house. There is just no way you can get insulation without building out. 10 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s different than the bedrock. MR. CATALANO-I’m not an architect. That’s why I wish the architect was here, but in his letter he noted about the bedrock considerations, and I assume that when I did ask him about re-doing the winterizing of the house, and he said it was really problematic, but you cannot get underneath the house, in order to provide the, particularly for the water and the pipes, connected underneath enough to really insulate the area and put a furnace down there and so forth. So, you know, that’s one of the reasons why the house is going to be elevated slightly, just to do that, because you cannot go down, there’s bedrock all around. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? Correspondence. Read that letter. MR. O’CONNOR-Could I just make a comment? MR. THOMAS-Yes, okay. MR. O’CONNOR-I think the point seems to be lost. We are looking at a vacant parcel of land, as far as this application is before the Board, and the scope of review of the Board. There is no grandfathering because you have an existing building there, and the statement by counsel that if the land were vacant, they wouldn’t be asking for this variance, is the whole point of our argument. That’s the way that you’ve got to look at the thing. The adverse change they’re talking about only raising the roof. You’re talking about the whole entire structure, because there’s no grandfathering. It’s not just simply, I’ve emphasized the impact of a change from what’s there, why we would just as soon maintain the status quo if we have to, but the whole impact here is of the whole structure that will be immediately in their side yard and block their view. The mention of bedrock, I don’t think the architect’s letter supports the issue that it’s being requested to place it here because of the existence of bedrock, in fact, my client tells me that the house as it presently stands is on bedrock, and the whole site down in that end of the lot is all bedrock. So they’re going to have the same bedrock problem whether it’s centered or it’s over on the side. I would ask you to take a look at the top of page 114 and 115 of what we submitted to you, and just a couple of footnotes that are there. They talk about the first decision where the court determined that the alleged basis for the variance lacked a nexus to the property itself and further announced that a property owner is not entitled to an Area Variance by demonstrating that he is merely inconvenienced by a bulk restriction by a setback, if you will. That’s right at the top of Page 114. MR. STONE-The numbers have been cut off of ours. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. It’s on 115. MR. STONE-We don’t have those numbers. MR. THOMAS-The numbers are gone. MR. O’CONNOR-I’m sorry. MR. STONE-115, that’s one of the few that’s there. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Look at the opposite side of it, this is McKinney’s Town Law, and it’s the commentary on Section 267B. Okay. At the top of Page 114, the paragraph that begins with “The Fuhst court”. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. That little paragraph there, and then if you look at the opposite page, and you can read as well as I can, probably better than I can. The paragraph that begins, “Closely related to personal convenience and uniformly rejected as a basis for relief is the aesthetic preference of a land owner.” They’re after the 1992 modifications. MR. CATALANO-The date on the cases? MR. O’CONNOR-I’m sorry, the first case is 1978, and there is no particular case on the other cite. There’s a whole bunch of cases. MR. CATALANO-Those cases pre-dating the new amendment (lost words). 11 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. O’CONNOR-This is Second Department 1992. I think it’s after the amendment. I don’t mean to quote law to you. You have your own counsel if you have a question, but I don’t think there’s any issue on the fact that you’re looking at a vacant lot, and that’s the way you’ve got to apply the standards that are applicable. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Anything else, Mr. Catalano? MR. CATALANO-Yes. I just wanted to, maybe I could focus something for the Board very easily. Maybe, as far as the height and so forth and views. If the Middletons requested to re-build the house, exactly as it is, okay, without any change in height, would the Board still consider this, typically, looking at a vacant lot? No, you’ve got to look at all the circumstances. You’ve got to look at what is the construction going to effect? The lot and the surrounding area, the views from all over. Now the Middletons have asked for an increase in height, which is still below the district maximum limitations. So the question to the Board is, is that increase in height so important that all of a sudden keeping the house the same exact way is no longer sufficient or acceptable to the neighbors in the area. I think we should focus on that. Maybe we could get away from focusing on just the single piece of property to the north of this. I mean, you’ve got to focus all around on the properties as well, thanks. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, just one other comment. The reason that you don’t focus on it as a re-build or a re-modeling is the other provision, 179, I’m not sure what it is, that says that in a nonconforming lot or nonconforming structure, you can’t expand, by more than 50%. We’ve got a structure here now that has, eight, nine hundred square feet, and they’ve got 2200 proposed. I mean, they would get blown out of the water, if you get into that area, because all of the expansion is within, is an increase of the nonconformity. MR. ROUND-I wouldn’t get confused with the level of expansion. MR. STONE-Well, I heard 16 versus 23. MR. O’CONNOR-I went by the Assessment record. MR. ROUND-If I might offer something, I wouldn’t get confused when the level of expansion. Mr. O’Connor is correct in regards to looking at the setbacks. All right, if we’re looking at the setbacks, this is considered for new construction, but the Middletons are correct in regards to in a balancing, in regards to impact, you, as a Board, can look at the size of the existing structure versus the new structure, to make your judgment, and I think those are the two things that are out there right now, and not to get confused between all this other periphery right now. MR. CATALANO-And also if I just may add, if the size of the structure, as far as square footage goes, the Board can just put a condition on it that it cannot be increased by more than 50%, and because that’s what our intention all along is, and the architect has met that, as far as we’re concerned. So we’d be willing to abide by that. MR. THOMAS-Anybody else? MR. O’CONNOR-The same argument again, Chris. I’ve made it, I hope. th MR. THOMAS-Read that letter from the architect on the 19. nd MRS. LAPHAM-The one from the architect is the 22. th MR. THOMAS-There’s one that was faxed in today, the 24. MRS. LAPHAM-Robert W. Hoffman, Architect, Putnam Valley, New York, September 22, 1997, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Reference: New Home for Robert and Geraldine Middleton, Cleverdale, NY “Dear Members of the Zoning Board: I apologize for not being present for tonight’s Zoning Board hearing. I would like at this time to make the following comments and state my observations regarding the above referenced project. As you will note on drawing A-2, west elevation, my client’s home was designed so that the Kajdasz lake view is retained. This was accomplished by designing the home with the second floor to the south on the existing foot print. The first floor portion of the building to the north has a ridge height that is actually lower (approx. 2’-0”) than the existing ridge height. By utilizing the existing footprint for the new proposed home, adjoining property owners views will be retained. When the architect 12 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) designed the Kajdasz’s home he located the building in such a way to maximize the view to the lake. He carefully took into consideration the surrounding elements including the pre-existing Middleton residence. The Kajdasz’s architect rotated the building approximately 30 degrees off the north elevation of the Middleton’s building thereby capturing the best possible view of the lake. When the Middleton’s home was located on the site, again the architect took into consideration the existing site obstacles such as the bedrock to the south and the concern for blocking pre-existing neighboring homes. He also wanted to maintain a certain “green area” to the south of the home for lawn recreation and which is currently used extensively. Perhaps the only solution at this time would be to carefully prune the trees located on the Kajdasz’s property which is currently hindering their view of the lake. If any of the Board members have any questions, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, Roger W. Hoffman, R.A.” MR. THOMAS-And read in the new Staff Notes. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Community Development Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-1997, Geraldine & Robert Middleton, Meeting Date: PROJECT LOCATION:Description of Proposed September 24, 1997 “ 119 Seelye Road Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new home at the location of an existing home. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting relief from the side and shoreline setback requirements of the WR-1A zone (Section 179-16) and the shoreline setback requirements of Section 179-60. The proposed residential structure is located five (5) feet from the northerly side line, a 20 foot side setback is required. The proposed structure is also located 19.35 feet from the shoreline. The average shoreline setback of the adjacent properties is approximately 58 feet, Criteria for considering an Area Variance therefore the required shoreline setback is 58 feet. according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be 2. Feasible alternatives: allowed to construct a new home at the existing home location. Several alternatives are apparently available to the applicant. The lot configuration would allow for 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: alternative construction locations. The 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? requested relief is interpreted as substantial. 5. Is this There may be impacts to the adjoining properties as a result of the new construction. difficulty self-created? The existing house is not in compliance with the required setbacks and Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, may be interpreted as a self-created difficulty. etc.): The variance application was initially presented to the ZBA on June 25, 1997. The applicant was requested to provide architectural elevations for review and has done so. The applicant was also requested to explore options with the neighbor to the north to alleviate a reputed Staff comments: right-of-way and easement that may impact alternative house locations. The new construction will reportedly be 28 feet in height and in conformance to the WR-1A height restrictions. The new structure will represent a five (5) feet increase in height as compared to the SEQR Status: existing structure and may have an impact to the northerly neighbor’s view. Type II” MR. THOMAS-Is there any other correspondence in there? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. CATALANO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just note, I have copies of letters that were sent to the Zoning Board from some neighbors, and I just wanted to make sure you got them. One is by Linda and Mark McCollister, dated 8/18. Another is by Rich and Pat Tuzzolo. MRS. LAPHAM-I just looked, and letters from the public is blank, but I’ll look through the folder. MR. CATALANO-I’ll submit the copies. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Meanwhile, I’ll look and see if they’re here. Okay. There it is. MR. O’CONNOR-Were they read at the last meeting in August? MR. THOMAS-No. 13 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Is that the only one? MR. CATALANO-That’s the McCollister? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. CATALANO-No, there’s two more. MRS. LAPHAM-All right, Rich and Pat Tuzzolo? MR. CATALANO-Tuzzolo’s another one, and then Andrew Campriello, which is dated September th 16. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “Dear Mr. Hilton: Our family has resided on the property across from the Middletons for 12 years. We are writing today in support of their request to re-build on the existing footprint. The Middletons have always taken great care of their property and have maintained the utmost respect and concern for the lake, its water and the wildlife that end up on their shore from time to time. We also share their love for Lake George and do cherish our small, significant to us, view of the lake. If the Middletons house were to be moved to the center of the lot, we would lose the present view that we have. It seems to us that the least impact of any type of reconstruction would be to build on the present site. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any further need to contact us, please do not hesitate to do so. Sincerely Yours, Rich and Pat Tuzzolo” MR. THOMAS-What’s the date on this? MRS. LAPHAM-And the date on this was 8/15/97. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-To the Zoning Board of Appeals, from Linda and Mark McCollister, Seeley Road, and the date on this was 8/18/97. “This letter is to inform the Board that we are in favor of the proposed Area Variance that the Middletons have applied for. We have been year -round residents for well over 25 years at our house on Seelye Road. We are the neighbor, 3 houses directly north of the Middletons. Jerry and Bob have been excellent neighbors - a joy to have. They have always been ready to help any neighbor and have made many improvements to their property over the years. We have seen the plans for their new home and we see nothing but wonderful improvements to their property as well as to the overall neighborhood. The Middletons are following the rules for putting their house in the footprint of the existing cottage. To move the house to the center of their lot would cause them unnecessary hardship and they would also lose much of their lawn area to the south. It is very sad that Mr. and Mrs. Kaidas (the neighbor directly to the north) are opposed to this improvement on the Middleton property. The Kaidas’s have a wonderful view of Lake George from their property. Over the years, we have all had to give up some of our side views of the Lake. It seems to have been forgotten by Mr. Kaidas that back in 1985 he put up a 6 ft. high fence that totally blocked the Middleton’s from a great view to the north of Lake George. The town had him remove the fence, but he replaced it with evergreens that have grown and totally blocked the Middleton’s view to the north again. I have been coming to the Middleton house since I was a young child (at that time it was owned by the McCoys) and remember very distinctly the view from the McCoy front porch - it took your breath away! Before Mr. Howland put this large dock out at the point (in the 1950’s) you could see all the way to Elizabeth Island. We feel it is important that the board know this history in order to point out that the Middleton’s have given up some of their views over the years. Thank you for all your work in this matter, and we are hopeful that the Board will vote in favor of this proposed area variance. Linda & Mark McCollister” Andrew Campriello, 1503 Chrysler Avenue, Schenectady, NY, September 16, 1997, Attention: Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: Geraldine and Robert Middleton, Area Variance No. 31-1997 “Members of the Board: I own our property, with my son-in-law and daughter, Dr. and Mrs. Joseph G. Guerra which is two doors from the Middletons. I write so that it is noted that I have no objection to this variance being granted. I feel after twenty some years of knowing them that they keep their property very well maintained and have great respect for Lake George. A few years ago after the construction of a new garage, they spent a great deal of time, effort and money to get landscaping that was aesthetically pleasant to view and also environmentally as the stone wall slows the water run off. I have seen the plans, and again do not oppose the building of in the foot print. Sincerely, Andrew Campriello” MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s it? 14 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I’ll close the public hearing PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Catalano? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start with you, Bonnie, what do you think? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, unfortunately, I think this is going to be one of those things where nobody wins, and I have to say that I admire the Middletons for trying as best they can to minimize any impact that it will cause in the construction and staying below the height requirement, but on the other hand, I do have to agree with the other neighbors. I think this is far too close to the lake, and if we have to consider it as a vacant piece of property, which the law says we are supposed to do that, that’s the way I understand it. We would never allow anything this close to the lake on a vacant piece of property. So, I guess I would have to stand opposed at this point, providing that the Kaidas are still willing to give up the right-of-ways. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I agree with Bonnie. I think that there’s been a lot of comment about that house being there for 60 years, and I think that what was acceptable 60 years ago for a summer camp is not acceptable today for an all year round house. When a house is ripped down like this, I think it’s the time to correct the situation and get the proper setbacks, if possible. As far as I can see, the neighbors are willing to give up their right-of-way, which should allow these people to get close to the setbacks required. So I’d say I’m against it. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-I’m of the same mind. This, to me, is a very narrow issue. Unfortunately, we’ve had a lot of emotion involved, and that’s okay, but unfortunately, this is a matter of a very recent change in the Queensbury Code, in terms of Waterfront Residential. We are trying very hard to adhere to this new law. We have tried very hard not to establish any negative precedents. For example last week, we refused a variance when somebody wanted to be considerably closer to the lake than we wanted. To me, we have this new law. I believe it’s for the good of the community and it’s good for the lake, and we have to focus on all property on the lake. I appreciate the individual situation, but we have to focus on what is good for Queensbury and is good for Lake George, and on that basis, I would have to vote against granting the variance. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I’ve done the Zoning Board for seven months now, and I think this is really the closest case that I’ve had to make a decision on, as far as what I think are the important aspects. The applicant and their counsel confirm my own feelings that the construction of a new camp at the site of the existing camp would not interfere with the existing views of the neighbors, and I feel that, based on the fact that I do believe the Kajdasz’s rotated their house to change the view. It’s the only logical conclusion to come to. I think that the Middleton camp, and the camps around it were built afterward, and they would have certainly had to consider that where they constructed their camp, and finally, I really, in my mind, think that there’s some evidence that the Middleton’s view has been impaired, whether intentionally or unintentionally, by their neighbors as well. So I don’t think that that argument is germane, but I agree with the rest of the Board members, in that, if, as the counsel for the Kajdasz’s contends, we have to consider this in the notion of a re-build, and therefore a vacant lot, I think that the Middletons could accomplish their goals by another method that would require less substantial relief than we’re being asked to grant today. So I would be opposed to the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I really don’t have too much more to add. I’m pretty much in agreement with the rest of the Board on this matter. I do concur with Jaime that the view issue is really irrelevant to either side. That’s not something we should consider. Like Mr. O’Connor says we should consider this as a vacant parcel, a new build, I concur 100% with that, and if that is indeed the case we’re looking at, there’s no way I can agree to these variances. There’s too much relief involved. It’s too substantial. So I’m against. 15 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I actually visited the place two times, once prior to the first time they were here, and now once during the last month, just to look at the views and see what I could see regarding the site. I have to agree that the Middletons, if they’re allowed to build, are going to have a wonderfully larger home, a more modern home, a home that they can use in the winter, and if they put it where they put it, it’s going to maintain what view that they have had, when someone decided to put this house 10 feet or so from the lake front, 60, 70, 80 years ago, but what they’re asking for I think is very substantial a change. Particularly in view of the fact that they’re going to tear down the existing structure and build from scratch. The shoreline setback should be at least 50 feet, might be even more (lost words) neighbors, and they would like to build their home 10 feet from the shore. Side yard setbacks should be 25 feet. They want to maintain the 25 feet. Even if the square footage is looked at, I mean, I don’t know if it’s 800 feet or 1600 feet, but wherever you look at, the new building they want to put up is 2400 square feet, and that’s a substantial change and increase in size. I might even argue that it’s a 50 percent increase, regardless of where you start from, at least a 50% increase. The alternatives that are available to the Middletons may not afford them as nice a view as they currently have. Status quo could remain, as their attorney said. They’re entitled to live in their existing house, in the existing structure, from now until doomsday, but if they’re asking us for a variance, I mean, we have to consider that they also have the alternative of building a house in the middle of their lot, in accordance with the existing zoning law, and certainly would be a hell of a lot less intrusive. I don’t think that by siting it in the existing place it’s going to off set the detriment to the community and to the surrounding neighborhood. There’ll be an impact on view, if only from the lake. It would be a change in usage. There’ll be a change in appearance, just generally negative physical environmental conditions. This isn’t a personality contest. I’m sure the Middletons are fine people. I’m sure the Kajdasz’s are fine people. I know they have neighbors that respect them, that want them to do the best, but given the circumstances, on balance I’m just going to have to say that I’m not terribly in favor of this application, and as it is, I’d vote it down. MR. THOMAS-All right. Well, I think the Board has said about everything that can be said about this. I think they’ve touched on all five points that the Zoning Board has to consider in an Area Variance, and I feel as the other Board members do, that this is a new, if this camp is torn down to build a home, that the home should conform as close as they can to the zoning requirements of the zone. We’ve had other variance requests come in, and some we’ve granted close to the lake, and others we’ve rejected because of the size of the lot, the side setbacks, and generally the shape of the lot, and in this case, I think the applicant can move that new home to the center of the lot. They may not get 50 feet back, or they may be closer than the 58 feet to the lake required, but that would have to be another variance after a set of blueprints have been submitted. So, to me, there are other alternatives that can be done to alleviate this. Having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1997 GERALDINE & ROBERT MIDDLETON , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: 119 Seelye Road. The applicants propose to remove an existing home and construct a new home in the same location. Having said that they’re going to do that, this makes the lot to be considered vacant and therefore current Waterfront zoning law becomes effective. The amount of variance that is being requested, both in terms of shoreline setback and side yard setback are considered excessive, and therefore, we will not grant the variance. In our opinion, the difficulty is, in fact, self created, and the relief requested is substantial. We are also taking into consideration the effect that granting this extreme relief might have on subsequent applications by other residents of the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So the variance is denied. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to thank the Board on behalf of Mr. Kajdasz. I will stand by our offer, which we had before, that we would give up the easement if we could come to 16 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) some agreement with the Middletons. In the mean time, I would like to get back the original document that I gave to you, until we reach that agreement. MR. THOMAS-Right here. MR. O’CONNOR-Just the quit claim deed. I will submit to Staff a copy of this. I have a copy. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1997 TYPE II SFR-10 ROGER & PAMELA WHITING OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 6 DIXON COURT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-CAR GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 17920, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SFR-10 ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 101-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.64 ACRES SECTION 179-20 ROGER & PAM WHITING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-1997, Roger & Pamela Whiting, Meeting Date: PROJECT LOCATION:Description of Proposed September 24, 1997 “ 6 Dixon Court Project: Applicant proposes to construct an attached two car garage (24 ft. by 24 ft.) to an existing home. The existing attached garage will be converted to storage space. The structure will Relief require relief from the front setback requirements of Section 179-20, the SFR-10 zone. Requested: The required front setback is 30 feet. The proposed garage is located 17 feet from the Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of front property line. Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant will be permitted to construct a two-car 2. Feasible alternatives: garage. The unusual lot configuration and the location of existing on- 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the site sewage disposal system limit alternative locations. Ordinance? The required setback is 30 feet and the requested setback is 17 feet, 13 feet of relief 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community may be interpreted as substantial. There are 5. Is this difficulty self-created? minimal impacts to the neighborhood and/or community. The Parcel History unusual lot configuration is interpreted as the source of the difficulty. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None pertinent. The existing house is located 22.8 feet from the front property line and the proposed garage is located 17 feet from the front property line - a distance that is consistent with adjoining properties. A septic line originates at the southeast corner of the house and is located parallel to the proposed garage (north/south SEQR orientation) limiting placement of the garage at a location equal to the setback requirement. Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Mr. and Mrs. Whiting, is there anything you’d like to add to your application? MRS. WHITING-Not at this time. We’re just here to answer any questions that you may have. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-What about the tree? MRS. WHITING-We were going to try to save that. It’s a nice tree. Are you talking about the tree next to the garage? MR. STONE-I’m talking about the tree right on the street, which may be just to the right of the garage. MR. WHITING-The tree will stay. It’s on Town property anyway, and it’s on the setback. That’s on the Town easement for the road. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. WHITING-Yes. I designed this in a way that I’ll have a smaller road entrance on that side, taking account for the tree, and opening up, broadening out, into the garage. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, will the road entrance stay where it is? The curb cut will stay where it is? 17 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. WHITING-No. I’ll move over to accommodate that, close to the tree, but not taking any of the tree. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. STONE-This drawing, I notice you have a very large overhang in front of the garage. MR. WHITING-Yes. MR. STONE-Are these dimensions to the wall or to the overhang? MRS. WHITING-I think they’re just the footprint. Again, I’d have to ask my surveyor, but I think it’s the footprint. I don’t think it’s the overhang. MR. STONE-Because I noticed it’s a big overhang. MRS. WHITING-Yes. It’s about three or four feet, I think. MR. WHITING-Yes. The garage will not come out any further. That overhang won’t come out any further than the existing house overhang. MR. STONE-Okay. That was my question, because it’s not obvious from the drawing. So it will come out to the end of the overhang? MR. WHITING-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Will it have overhang itself? MR. WHITING-No. That overhang won’t come out any further. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the Whitings? MR. KARPELES-Yes. It looks to me like the house was laid out so that the setbacks would be fairly consistent from the property line. The property line’s at an angle, and I’m just wondering why you can’t do the same thing, why you can’t move it back farther? MR. WHITING-Okay. I have two problems in the rear. One is there is an easement by Niagara Mohawk running right behind, between my house and as you see the back pool. There are transmission lines running through there. I don’t want to go back and interfere with anything. I do have an existing, a pre-existing back porch, but I don’t want to go back because I’m going a little higher, I think, with this. The primary reason is I have my sewage, my septic line runs approximately one to two feet from the outside wall in the rear, and runs south, and I made provisions for this. We kept that line intact, when we put a whole new septic system in last June, assuming that I may need a garage, and my septic person said it would be advisable to stay off that line. It would be considerably nonconstructive to go over it. MR. STONE-Out of curiosity, what was on that ground that’s bare? MRS. WHITING-That’s where we put the septic system. MR. WHITING-Yes. MR. STONE-That is. MR. WHITING-That was all trees at one point. I mean, we had to cut them all down because we needed all that for the new septic system. MR. STONE-So where it’s all bare, that’s where the septic system? MRS. WHITING-Right. MR. WHITING-And we waited to seed it, knowing we were going to get a garage in there, hopefully, and then we’re going to re-do it. 18 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. KARPELES-Couldn’t you move that back so it was at least flush with the back of the existing house? MR. WHITING-No. My septic line comes out two feet from that line. MR. KARPELES-On this side of that line? MR. WHITING-Yes. MRS. WHITING-And it was already running underneath the previous garage. MR. STONE-On the side wall, coming out on the side wall? MRS. WHITING-Yes, in the back here. MR. WHITING-Yes. My septic runs on the back wall, okay, south. MR. HAYES-So it would go right through that 24, then. MR. WHITING-It would if I move it back. MR. HAYES-As it is now, you’re saying. MR. STONE-It’s where the 24 feet is. MRS. LAPHAM-What are you doing with the present garage? MRS. WHITING-We’re going to close it off and use it for storage space. We’re only allowed to have a two car garage. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, because I was just thinking, if you weren’t going to use it for living space, you could add a single car in line with that. I see you have plans for that. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the Whitings before I open up the public hearing? MR. STONE-No. I was just curious how they got this odd shaped lot where the pool is? MRS. WHITING-Just lucky I guess. MRS. LAPHAM-They bought it that way, yes. MR. THOMAS-I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the Whitings? If not, lets talk about. I’ll start down at the far end there with Mr. McNally. MR. MC NALLY-This is an interesting little property. It seems to me that granting this variance would not be a terribly difficult thing for us to do. The property is 17 feet from the corner of the garage to your property line, as I understand it. MRS. WHITING-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And then there’s an additional green space to the actual paved surface of Dixon Court. The benefit to the Whitings would certainly be apparent. It would give them a hell of a lot more elbow room, on balance, I don’t see a negative impact on the area. If it were a different lot, I might have some concerns, but not on this instance. 19 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I tend to agree with Bob. There’s not a lot of alternatives here. I don’t hear any opposition from anyone in the neighborhood speaking out about it, and the relief is not phenomenal. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think it’s very straight forward myself. I think this is minimal relief, and I think that the benefits to the applicant are very obvious, and I have no problem with the application. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-I agree. MR. THOMAS-You agree what? MR. STONE-I agree that there is no problem in granting this variance. MR. THOMAS-Robert? MR. KARPELES-I don’t see much alternative. I’d rather see it set back a little farther, but I don’t see how it can be done. So I’d go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree with Lew Stone. MR. THOMAS-Because of the shape of the lot and what the applicant wants, I don’t see any problem with it. As Mr. McNally down there at the end pointed out, there’s a lot of green space between the property line and the actual edge of the pavement. So it gives it an appearance of setting back farther, plus it won’t be any closer to the road than the existing overhang of the existing garage, and the applicant also stated that they were going to convert the existing garage into storage space, and there’s really no other place on the property to locate that garage because of the septic system, and the way the septic system drains the house. So I have no problem with this application either. Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1997 ROGER & PAMELA WHITING , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 6 Dixon Court. The applicant proposes to construct an attached two car garage to an existing home, dimensions to be 24 feet by 24 feet. The granting of the variance will allow the garage to be built and converted into storage space on the existing garage. The variance will ask for relief of 13 feet from the front setback requirements of Section 179-20 in the SFR-10 zone. The benefit to the applicant is obvious. It will allow them to construct their two car garage. Alternatives are really not feasible, due to the unusual lot configuration and the siting of the sewage disposal system. Relief is not substantial, in my estimation, and effects on the community are minimal, and there has been no public opposition to the variance. The difficulty really has not been self created, due to the unusual lot configuration. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-All you need now is to see the Building Department and get a building permit. This doesn’t have to go before the Planning Board, does it? MR. ROUND-I don’t believe so. MR. THOMAS-All right. 20 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MRS. WHITING-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. MR. WHITING-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1997 UNLISTED RR-3A ROGER BOOR & CYNTHIA CROSS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 83 SUNNYSIDE EAST APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO EXISTING GARAGE SO THAT YARD EQUIPMENT, BOAT AND TOOLS CAN BE STORED UNDER SHELTER. THE GARAGE WILL EXCEED THE 900 SQ. FT. AREA AS DEFINED IN SECTION 179-7. TAX MAP NO. 52-1-42.1 LOT SIZE: 10.66 ACRES SECTION 179-7 ROGER BOOR, PRESENT MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, this is a time of elections, and since I am running for office and Mr. Boor has spoken favorably in public on my behalf, I would recuse myself from hearing this case. MR. THOMAS-All right. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-1997, Roger Boor & Cynthia Cross, Meeting Date: PROJECT LOCATION:Description of Proposed September 24, 1997 “ 83 Sunnyside East 22 Project: The applicant proposes construction of a 600 ft. addition to an existing 600 ft. garage. Relief Required: The proposed construction requires relief from §179-7 restricting garage areas 2 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town to 900 ft.. Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant will be permitted to construct additional garage 2. Feasible alternatives: space for the storage of miscellaneous items. No construction or 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: construction of a separate structure. The 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: requested relief is not interpreted as substantial. 5. Is this difficulty self- Minimal effects are anticipated on the neighborhood and community. created?Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff No. None applicable. Comments: The applicant reportedly proposes storage of lawn and garden equipment in the SEQR Status: expansion and as a result minimal impacts are anticipated. Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-All right, Mr. Boor and Ms. Cross. MR. BOOR-I’m Roger Boor. I don’t think I submitted a drawing or sketch. This is essentially what the building would look like. This cut away here is the existing. This would be the addition, as it faces our house. This would be the addition as it faces our neighbor to the east. This would be the rear elevation, which is 1600 feet deep, and there’s nobody there, essentially, that can see that. MR. THOMAS-The first question is, that window on the second story. MR. BOOR-It’s light for storage of boards and stuff like that upstairs. MR. THOMAS-On the second floor. MR. BOOR-Yes. MR. THOMAS-You don’t plan any kind of occupation? MR. BOOR-Absolutely not. There’s going to be no plumbing or any, no. I’m not. MR. THOMAS-Okay. On that east elevation, what’s that between the two windows? Is that the door? MR. BOOR-Those are two, three foot doors that will both open up. There’ll be a concrete ramp, for like a 42 inch deck mower. We’ll be able to drive up into there. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and on the other side is a regular garage door? MR. BOOR-That would be the boat access from that side, yes. I 21 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. In the application, you said it was for yard equipment, boat and tools. MR. BOOR-I’ve got a cement mixer, a riding mower, a push mower, a compressor, a table saw, a roller, a spreader, a tow wheel barrel, a canoe. I’ve got outdoor furniture. We’ve got rakes, shovels, that nature. MR. THOMAS-What I’m getting to is that you could put up a separate building just for boat storage. MR. BOOR-I could. What I’m really trying to do, I’ve now got two 200 amp services there. I would really like to have the power only in those two areas. I do not want to have to put another service in. We’ve got 75 feet to separate the garage from the house now. I was tripping the breakers, starting my snow blower in the winter. So we were forced to put a service in the garage just so we could get ample power. I would prefer not to have to put more power on the property. I’d really like to keep it only where it is now. MR. THOMAS-What’s causing the big draw on the power? MR. BOOR-Starting a snow blower. We’re 75 feet from the house. I don’t know. I mean, it’s a done deal now because the service is in there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BOOR-There’s no ground. First of all, it was a two wire system. There was no ground wire. MR. THOMAS-Once it goes through the meter, we don’t care. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I’m not real clear. Is there going to be a floor between the upstairs and the downstairs? I mean, is there going to be an upstairs and a downstairs? MR. BOOR-There will be floor joists. MR. KARPELES-No flooring? MR. BOOR-It’s not on the plans, and I might put plywood. I might consider that, but, no. I’m not really, with the collar ties, you want, have seven feet of clearance up there. As a matter of fact, the collar ties are probably going to come into that window, that upper window. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-No. I think it’s very clear. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. BOOR-I also have letters from all my neighbors, if you’d like to have them read in. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ll read them in during the public hearing. MR. BOOR-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence in the folder? MRS. LAPHAM-Not that I have, no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you want to bring those letters up and we’ll read them in. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Alfred and Kathleen DuBois, 95 Sunnyside East, Queensbury, NY RE: Boor/Cross Variance “Board Members: We are next door neighbors to the above-named 22 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) applicants. Our property is directly east of theirs. We have no objection to your granting a variance so they will be able to expand their existing garage. Sincerely, Kathleen DuBois, Alfred DuBois” Robert & Doris Kahn, 80 Sunnyside East, Queensbury, NY, Zoning Board of Appeals, 9/24/97, RE: Roger Boor & Cynthia Cross, addition to existing garage, “We have no objection to the garage addition at 83 Sunnyside East, in that it is consistent with said application. Doris M. Kahn Robert H. Kahn” September 24, 1997, To: Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: The Boor application to construct an addition to an existing garage on Sunnyside East “We have no objection to the application for enlarging the garage since it is for their personal use and not a business or commercial use. Thomas Dougher and Sylvia Dougher” MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for the applicants? MR. MCNALLY-Just so I understand it, what’s the square footage of the proposed garage? MR. BOOR-The addition is 600, the existing is 600. Together they would be 1200 square feet, or there abouts. MR. MCNALLY-So that would be a 300 foot variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 300 foot. Any other questions? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-We have to do the old Short Environmental Assessment Form here. Does anyone have any questions or comments on the Short Environmental Assessment Form? If not, I’ll make a motion. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THIS PROJECT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-One last time, any questions for the applicants? If not, lets talk about it. We’ll start with you, Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, the applicant is not requesting any building setbacks, front, side or rear. There’s a positive input from the neighbors, 100%, and I really think, in balance, when we consider the impact on the neighborhood, I think that this is a more rural setting, and I think if you’re going to build a garage that’s bigger than the Code, I would be more positive about that in a rural atmosphere than I would be in a more densely used area. The benefits to the applicant are pretty straightforward, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I agree with Jaime. The rural atmosphere lends itself to the size of the addition. Again, there’s no setback variance being requested, and the way the building is being projected, he’s building going backwards and not east to west, also is helpful, and therefore I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The addition is away from the road, well screened by some shrubs and trees. I understand the applicant is going to keep? MR. BOOR-Yes. There is one short shrub that would have to come out, which would be the driveway for the boat. 23 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. MC NALLY-The amount of relief they’ve asked for is 300 square feet, and while it’s a good sized garage, I think this particular area, it’s an appropriate size to build a new structure. I have no objection to it at all. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I have no objection, and you also brought up a point that without a variance, is this correct, they could construct another building on the property? MR. THOMAS-Yes, they could. They could have a boat storage. That’s just what I’m looking up. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. Well, I would rather see an extension to this garage and have it kept all in one place than to see another structure on the property. I think it is more in keeping with the rural nature. When I went by today, I made sure that I was east of the property so that I could see the trees, and they screen the garage very nicely now from your neighbors, and as long as the neighbors don’t have any objection, I don’t, either. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree with everyone else. I think he’s got a big parcel of land there, 10.66 acres, and he needs a lot of equipment to maintain that land, and he’s got to have a place to store it. I have no objections. MR. THOMAS-All right. I don’t have any objections either. The only thing I brought up was about the private boat storage building, and I would rather see an addition to the existing garage, rather than a 300 square foot addition to the garage, which he could make, plus another building on the property. As the other members of the Board have said, that it’s a very big piece of property. It’s very rural, and I see no problem whatsoever with it. Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1997 ROGER BOOR & CYNTHIA CROSS , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: For the construction of an addition at 83 Sunnyside East to an existing garage, so that yard equipment, boat and other tools can be stored. The garage is going to exceed the 900 square foot area defined in Section 179-7, by 300 square feet. So that is the intent of the variance, 300 square feet. It would certainly benefit the applicants. They would be able to store equipment out of sight and under cover. It would also have no effect on the character of the neighborhood, it being rural and residential, and the applicants owning a large parcel of property, to accommodate a building somewhat slightly over the Zoning Ordinance requirements. It is not likely to be visible due to the landscaping that currently exists, and the fact that it’s built away from the road, further from the existing structure. There may be alternatives to building an addition to the existing garage, but on balance constructing a separate structure on the same parcel would not be appropriate. I don’t believe the amount of relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, and it certainly will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It is self created, in the sense that they chose that, but on balance, I don’t see that as a significant factor. It’s our understanding, as a condition of the variance, that there would be no living quarters or residential use of the property, of the addition. It is to be used solely and exclusively for storage of property, for the private residential use of the main house. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. BOOR-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. 24 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1997 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA THOMAS L. CLARY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 58 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-CAR GARAGE. SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16 (WR-1A). TAX MAP NO. 45-3-14 LOT SIZE: 0.464 ACRES SECTION 179-16 THOMAS CLARY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-1997, Thomas Clary, Meeting Date: September 24, 1997 PROJECT LOCATION:Description of Proposed Project: “ 58 Reardon Road-Glen Lake 2 Relief Required: Applicant proposes construction of a two-car garage (24 ft. x 36 ft. - 864 ft.). Applicant seeks relief from the WR-1A §179-16 side setback requirement of 15 feet. A setback of Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of 10 feet is proposed. Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:2. Applicant would be allowed to construct a garage. Feasible alternatives: The location of an existing septic tank system, lot configuration, and 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the existing trees limit alternative construction layouts. ordinance?: A proposed setback of 10 feet as compared to the required 15 feet is not interpreted 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: as substantial. Minimal effects on the 5. Is this difficulty self-created?Parcel neighborhood and community are anticipated. No. History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Staff Comments: None applicable. The proposed setbacks are not inconsistent with existing setbacks in the general area of the project site. SEQR Placement of the garage at a location closer to the road may decrease the relief requested. Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Clary, is there anything else you want to add to your application there or tell us about? MR. CLARY-Not that I can think of at this point. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any questions for the applicant? MR. CUSTER-I’m just curious why it can’t be moved over five feet, so you really don’t have to ask for a variance. Does that push it into the leach pit too much? MR. CLARY-Yes. The leach pit is actually closer to where the proposed bed. MR. CUSTER-Okay, than what this diagram shows? MR. CLARY-Yes. MR. CUSTER-If you moved it forward, that wouldn’t be an issue, according to Staff comments. I’m not really against it one way or another, I’m just kind of. MR. CLARY-Forward, I don’t know as you would pick up five feet. MR. CUSTER-If you brought it closer to the road, okay. MR. STONE-I just have a question in terms of the actual location on the lot, because I was there today, and I saw your camp, which has Number 60 on it. Correct? There’s a house right to the right of you, as you face the lake, which does not appear on your chart, and I couldn’t figure out where that was. MR. CLARY-No, it’s to the left. MR. STONE-There’s one to the left, but there’s also a building to the right, as I face the lake. MRS. LAPHAM-But you’re in the middle. MR. CLARY-And I’m in the middle. MRS. LAPHAM-I was confused, too. It also doesn’t look like a camp. Is it a year round structure? 25 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. CLARY-No, it’s not a year round structure. Sixty Reardon Road is our house. MR. STONE-That’s your house, and then there’s a wood structure, there’s a log structure to the left. MR. CLARY-There’s a little utility. MR. STONE-No, no right on the lake. MRS. LAPHAM-There’s a log house. MRS. CLARY MRS. CLARY-The log house is our home. MRS. LAPHAM-That’s where your sign is. MR. STONE-But there’s a log frame residence to the left, you say, as you face the lake. MR. CLARY-Yes. That’s Olson. MR. STONE-Okay, but then to the right there’s a building which does not appear, the Ellenwood property, it does not appear on this thing. There is a gray building right next to yours. MRS. CLARY-Yes. That’s the 58. That’s 58. MR. STONE-And that’s not depicted on this. MRS. CLARY-Yes, it is. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, it is. It’s right here. That’s the one in the middle. MRS. CLARY-The one in the middle. MR. THOMAS-The one in the middle. You see where the drawing is, where the garage is going to be. Is this the gray camp that was at the bottom. MR. STONE-No, that’s their property. MR. ROUND-Why don’t you walk up and show them. MR. STONE-Yes, show us, would you, because we were confused. I was. This is your property, right? MR. CLARY-This is my home. MR. KARPELES-It says one story frame camp. MR. CLARY-The property where the camp is. I own both pieces. MR. STONE-This is 60? MR. CLARY-That’s 60. MR. STONE-No wonder. That was not clear to me at all. I had no idea where this garage. This is that little “A” Frame type thing. MRS. LAPHAM-Right, and see the problem is the sign is right on the tree here, sends you down there, and you look there, and it doesn’t conform to anything, and then I kind of drove over here and said, like this doesn’t have that. This doesn’t have this. MR. KARPELES-Have we done away with the green, or pink signs we were going to have? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we used to have them. 26 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. KARPELES-I haven’t seen a pink sign in three. MR. STONE-Three months. MR. ROUND-They’re supposed to be handed out with the applications. MR. KARPELES-Well, somebody’s got to enforce it and make them do it. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, because people don’t put them up, and it really is annoying. MR. STONE-So this is the one that has 60 on it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CLARY-Right. MR. STONE-Boy, that was not clear to me at all. MR. THOMAS-If you look on the application, it says, Description of Project: Build garage on Lot 58, Reardon Road. MRS. LAPHAM-And, see, there’s a 58 right on this house. MR. KARPELES-I wasn’t looking at the right lot at all. MR. STONE-I wasn’t either. MR. KARPELES-This is that little building that’s in the middle there, right? MRS. LAPHAM-Right. See, when you come down here, his name is on this tree that sends you down there, but then when you look, there’s a 58 on the house that looks like. MR. KARPELES-And I spent a lot of time. I even woke up a guy in the house next door. MRS. LAPHAM-So do you live in the other house year round? MR. CLARY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So this is just going to be over, that wooded area is up in here, where that little bench is? MR. CLARY-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s in here somewhere? MR. CLARY-Yes. MR. STONE-So it’s this, little further to the north of that. Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-So actually you’re the neighbor to the south, anyway. MR. CLARY-To the south. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it. Lew? 27 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. STONE-Well, not knowing exactly where it was, but looking at this thing, and I guess I would love to hear from the Ellenwoods. MR. THOMAS-Well, ask Bob, he woke them up. MR. KARPELES-I don’t know if that was who I woke up. MRS. CLARY-Yes, that’s the only ones there. I talked to her and she’s very much for it. MR. STONE-I mean, it’s minimum relief. I mean, I see the leaching pit, and certainly we don’t want to encroach upon that. There isn’t any other place that’s going to decrease the amount of relief needed. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Karpeles. MR. KARPELES-Well, since I didn’t find it, I can’t speak intelligently about it. Looking at the map, it doesn’t look like a big problem, but I’ll defer to somebody else on this one. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I really don’t have a problem with it. I think they’ve taken, you know, great pains to make sure they don’t sit on their own leaching system, and so that it’s not in any neighbor’s view. It’s directly behind their own house. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-You marked off this site with some tape and some clay, right? MR. CLARY-Yes, yellow string. MR. MC NALLY-How long have you owned this particular lot? MR. CLARY-October of last year. MR. MC NALLY-There was a separate lot next to yours. I don’t have a problem with the application. It seems to be minimal relief. Ideally, you might be able to locate that garage somewhere else to pick up a couple of extra feet. It’s not going to be a substantial change. I don’t see any real detriment to the area, and certainly it’s a benefit to the applicant. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I have no problems with the application either. My only question is, typically I like to see what’s going to go up there first, and I don’t see that being presented, height, width, you know, I mean, what kind of construction, what kind of architectural style. MR. CLARY-It would match the framing of the camp part, the gray camp. It would be the same siding, white trim. MR. THOMAS-What about the height at the peak? MR. CLARY-The height would be whatever pitch you need to make the dimensions, and I think it comes six foot nine or something like that above the floor. Kenny Collette’s drawing it up for me, and I don’t have a picture to show you. MRS. CLARY-It’s just one story. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because the accessory use now is 16 feet. MR. CLARY-Sixteen feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it can’t be any higher than 16 feet at the highest point, which would be probably on the lake side of that, because of it going up hill. So it won’t be any higher than 16 feet at the peak. 28 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. CLARY-Probably have to adjust the trusses, but I know I wouldn’t be able to stand up in it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CUSTER-That’s what I was more concerned with. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I don’t see any other reasonable alternative to accomplishing their goal, which is to have a garage, and that’s certainly a reasonable goal. So I have no problem with the application. I think the relief is minimal, even if it is five feet. MR. THOMAS-I don’t have any problem with it either, as long as it stays under the 16 feet as required by the Ordinance. The garage really can’t be located anywhere else on that property, even on the property next door that Mr. and Mrs. Clary own. It really isn’t wide enough, because it’s only 12 and a half feet up at the road. If they move it anywhere else, they run into the power lines, also into the telephone lines that are there, and obstruct those, and there is no visual impairment from the lot across the street, since it is empty and it does sit up higher. So I have no problem with it going right where it is, as long as it’s 16 feet or under at the highest point. Having said that, would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1997 THOMAS L. CLARY , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 58 Reardon Road, on Glen Lake. The applicant proposes to construct a two car garage , 24 feet by 36 feet, for a total of 864 square feet. The applicant seeks relief, exactly, of 5 feet from the WR-1A Section 179-16, side yard requirement of 15 feet. The plans call for 10 feet of side yard setback. The benefit to the applicant would be it would allow him to construct the garage. The feasible alternatives are limited, based on the dimensions of the lot and an existing septic tank system. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I do not believe that five feet is substantial in this circumstance. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that it’s back away from the lake, so that it would have a minimal impact on the nature of the community and the neighborhood, and I don’t believe the difficulty is self created, being that the narrowness of the lot, as it stands. Also that the structure will not be above the requirement of no greater than 16 feet in height. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. CLARY-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1997 TYPE II SFR-1A JEFFREY & JENNIFER GOHN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 55 HIDDEN HILLS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLING AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL SIX FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AND REQUIRES RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-67, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES, WHICH REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK OF TEN FEET. TAX MAP NO. 93-5-84 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION 179-67 JEFFREY GOHN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-1997, Jeffrey & Jennifer Gohn, Meeting Date: September PROJECT LOCATION:Description of Proposed Project: 24, 1997 “ 55 Hidden Hills Drive Relief Required: Applicant proposes construction of an in-ground swimming pool. The applicant proposes a side setback of 6 feet, a 10 foot setback is required for swimming pools under §179-67 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 (Accessory Structures). 29 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an in- 2. Feasible alternatives: ground pool on site at desired location. Alternative locations that would 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the meet the setback requirements are feasible on site. ordinance?: The required setback is ten feet, the requested setback of six feet may be interpreted 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: as substantial. Minimal impacts are anticipated 5. Is this difficulty self-created? on the neighborhood and community. The chosen/desired Parcel History location is the source of the difficulty and interpreted as self created. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Staff comments: None applicable. The location of the SEQR Status: pool could be modified to meet the required setbacks. Type II” MR. THOMAS-Do you want to come up and tell us about it. I have a question for Staff. Chris, Number Two, it says Feasible alternatives. Alternative locations that would meet the setback requirements are feasible on site. Okay. It just hit me what it means. I didn’t know what it meant. It all of a sudden hit me. MR. ROUND-Unless the Gohns have something to offer, I think you could site it. MR. GOHN-Can I elaborate on that for you? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GOHN-Basically, in the first part of the proposal, where we were looking for six feet, when we were going through this, not knowing how to figure it out, it’s going to be four feet from that one side of the fence, for a 12 foot section. Possibly, how Dan digs it, it may be able to get to that five feet, because as you walk through the back yard, there’s a concrete walkway already in place that wraps around to a deck in the back, 12 by 14 deck that protrudes off the back of the house. It was built when the house was constructed. Our leach field runs north to south. In other words, if you look at this plot plan, where the pool is set up, it runs north to south across the back yard. If we put it anywhere else in the back yard, we’d have to take up, dig up that leach field and try to move it either on the side of the house, which would create undue hardship on us for additional cost. So this is the only spot that we could put it. We tried to find a diagram of the pool that would shape to the yard, the back of the yard, have to go back where I said there was a 20 foot section. If you’ve driven by the property, it goes up. There’s a two tiered embankment that goes up. So we wouldn’t be able to meet the setbacks from there, if you dug into the embankment. Then you’d have a drainage problem if you even tried to change the shape of the pool from the way that it slopes off. So that’s why we put it in the position that we did. MR. STONE-So that is in front of the hill? That’s between the hill, it’s on the level, it’s totally on the level? MRS. GOHN-Yes. MR. GOHN-It’s totally on the level. MR. STONE-Okay. That was one of my questions. MR. KARPELES-That looked like a lot more than 20 feet to me. MR. GOHN-It probably is, but when we filled it in this way, basically we just approximated how far it was to that, but the sections of the fence are eight feet, and you’ve got at least three sections of eight foot fence from the back of the pool up, but that pool, where it’s at the base of the hill, if you put a two to three foot concrete decking around the pool there, you’ve got to take into account the drainage that you’re going to have coming off the hill, plus some water coming out of the pool. So there’s got to be somewhere for everything to go. If I move it back any further, I’m going to have the compound problem of drainage coming off the hill and the pool, and we are within the 12 feet, I guess, that you have the setback from the side of the house in that corner. MR. STONE-So you’re saying the leach field runs parallel to the back of the house? MRS. GOHN-Yes. MR. GOHN-Yes. 30 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. STONE-Up and down on this drawing. MR. KARPELES-You don’t have a sketch of the leach field? MR. GOHN-Do I have a sketch of the leach field? No, I don’t have a sketch of the leach field. I know that it runs north and south. With four bedrooms, I know there’s four 50 foot sections of pipe in that back. Where that one diagram is in here, basically the septic tank is set, what, nine feet from the corner of the house. You come in and then you come out about nine feet out, to put the box. I know some of you came over today and we pointed that out, but this is the only feasible spot left in the yard to put it, without having to dig up the entire leach field and place it in a whole other section of the back yard, or on the side of the house. MR. KARPELES-What did Staff have in mind when they said that? MR. ROUND-Well, I wasn’t privilege to that information. So it wasn’t on the application, and I drove by the property, took a walk around. MR. GOHN-Yes. I know when we came in and originally brought this downstairs, I said, did we need to draw in the septic system and the other, and she said, this is fine the way it is. MR. ROUND-Yes. You have the ability to give them that information now. So, I mean, you’re demonstrating that there are. MR. STONE-So the leach field goes to the south property line almost? MR. GOHN-We’re hoping that it ends within four feet of where the shallow end of that pool is. I have no idea, because when it was constructed, the leach fields and the septic system were already in. MR. STONE-I know. I’m saying the other way, going down on the drawing, going this way. How far does the leach field go this way? MR. GOHN-It’s coming out this way, and then it’s just running straight down. It’s going toward the pool, and there isn’t enough room to put it on this side. MR. STONE-Okay. That was the question. All right. MR. CUSTER-Because even if we moved it to the, then you’d have the setback on the other side. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAN SPRAGUE MR. SPRAGUE-I don’t know if I can answer some of your questions, but I’m the proposed builder, Dan Sprague, Sprague Pools. Where the applicant’s going here is the septic. I came to the Town and got a drawing of the septic system, which sometimes isn’t always there, but I went out and found the tank, and then I used a probe to probe down through to find the leach fields. The leach fields are running toward the field, and from what we can find by feeling the stone down through, we should be five to six feet from the end of where his proposed end of the pool should be. To move the septic system is, because of the hill in the back, is, the only way you can move it is your leach field would be five, six, seven feet below the existing ground, which wouldn’t work at that point, and to come over here in the side yard, he has a gas line, and his electrical lines comes in on that side yard over there. That’s why, in the design of the pool kind of fits that area with the less minimum use that it can have. Now to move that pool closer, we have a safety problem because of his deck and everything, is I’m concerned with kids getting on the deck and deciding that they can make the pool as a diving board. So, we tried to keep this as close as we could to the existing patio and still be able to get the construction of the pool with the bracing and everything in without having any problems. MR. STONE-What about the shape of the pool? I mean, you’ve chosen a kidney shaped pool. 31 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MR. GOHN-If it was rectangular, you’d be looking for a variance, basically, for 32 feet of the length of the pool. The way the shape of the pool goes, it will curve out far enough out to meet your 10 foot setbacks as you get to the curve. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying the one straight line would be at the minimum. MR. GOHN-Correct. MR. SPRAGUE-Correct. If we went with a straight pool, the variance would be for the five foot down the whole length of the property line, all right, and if you were at his property, his existing side walk makes a curve, okay. We vent the pool to match the curve to be able to slide the pool as close as we could to that side decking and still give him as much room as he could fit into that area. We kind of designed what we could for the less room that we could fit in there. MR. THOMAS-How about a smaller pool? Do they make them smaller? MR. GOHN-A smaller pool, you’d still be in the, I still think you’d be within that 10 foot variance on the side for part of it. Because, what’s the next smallest size, 20 feet? MR. SPRAGUE-Well, we get limited, and I’m getting into the construction part of it, but when we get into a curved pool, we get limited because of the pre-bent panels, that we can’t get smaller in the diameter of the pool. MR. THOMAS-On the radius of it? MR. SPRAGUE-On the radius part of the pool. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Any more questions for Mr. Sprague? Anyone else like to speak in favor of this variance? Anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicants? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Brian. MR. CUSTER-I really have no problems with the application. From an emotional standpoint, I realize the difficulty of having diabetic children, and one of the best things they can get granted to them is sports participation because it helps the metabolism of the sugars in their body. In fact, many of our best Olympic swimmers were diabetic, and if this is a way we can help future budding Olympians, I’m in support. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-The only question I had for the applicants was why, and they’ve answered that, in my mind, and Queensbury’s about families, and this seems to be about a family. So, I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I have a question, for my information, how high a fence? MR. GOHN-Four foot. MR. STONE-That’s all we need around a pool? MR. ROUND-Yes, that’s the right. MR. STONE-Four foot is? Okay. Then I have no problem with it either. I mean, you’ve already got the fencing in place, and it’s a very attractive piece of property. I had never been down there , 32 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) and I was very impressed with the neighborhood and certainly the condition of your property. So I think it’s fine. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, when you go and you look at it, it sure looks like they ought to be able to put the pool in without needing any relief, but I guess they’ve explained to my satisfaction why they need it. They certainly can’t go back into that bank any farther, because the septic tank comes out there and the septic system, and I guess I’d go along with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I have no problem with it. Mrs. Gohn was kind enough to show me around the property this afternoon, and she convinced me that there isn’t any other place they could put it. The septic tank does come directly off of the south corner, southwest corner of the house, and then the leach fields go out from there, and then you have the bank in the back, and the fencing already being in place. So, the neighbors shouldn’t even notice anything different. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’ll take a lesson from Mr. Stone and my compatriots, I don’t have any problem with it. MR. STONE-Thank you, Bob. MR. THOMAS-I don’t have any problem with this project either. It seems to be the only place that the pool can be put on the property, and because of the septic system and because of terrain. There exists a four foot fence already. I have no problem whatsoever. So if anyone would like to move this. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1997 JEFFREY & JENNIFER GOHN , Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 55 Hidden Hills Drive. To construct an in-ground swimming pool. The applicant proposes a side setback of six feet. A 10 foot setback is required for swimming pools under 179-67, Accessory Structures. The criteria for granting an Area Variance, According to Chapter 267 of Town Law has been met here. The benefit to the applicant would be they could construct the in-ground pool on the site at the desired location for their family enjoyment. There are no feasible alternatives due to the location of their septic system and leach fields, and there is a bank at the rear of the property, a two terrace bank, that would preclude any building. The required setback is 10 feet. The requested setback of six feet is substantial because it is over half, but on the balance of the project, I think that could be overlooked and there are minimal impacts that are anticipated in the neighborhood and community. There has been no correspondence or discussion in opposition. The difficulty due to the location is not self created because there is no other place that this pool could be placed. So if we’re going to say that it’s a self created difficulty, I guess the desire to have a pool would make this self created. There are not negative impacts that I can see. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-I think it’s a little late to put it in. MRS. GOHN-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Well, that concludes tonight’s agenda. Does anyone else have anything for the th Board? We have one set of notes from August 20. CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 20, 1997: NONE 33 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 9/24/97) MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NOTES OF THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AUGUST 20, 1997 , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Custer On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 34